Niklas LindstrÃ¶m wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> that's great! If [2] were to be updated with that [1] (i.e. officially
> containing RDFa about these URI:s), and would be 303:d to from [3]
> (along with anything under that URL), this would be all we need. I
> know it hasn't happened for years, but sometimes a nudge at just the
> right time may be all it takes..
>
> If not, would you consider updating your interim solution to describe
> URI:s under [1]? I mean, since [2] currently uses the real IANA URI:s
> (i.e. the "unsanctioned" ones) and those, as Danny cautioned, could
> end up e.g. being resolved to documents, breaking semantics (as well
> as not being discoverable).
>
> I did a manual (well, vim-macro:ed) conversion of [3] into RDF/XML,
> but had to leave to eat easter eggs at my sister's and entertain her
> kids. :) It's located at [4] now, and quite similar to the data in
> [1]. Note that I do consider [1] much more interesting.
>
> (That said, if anyone would like me to make e.g. an XSLT for turning
> [4] into something like [1], just say the word.)
>
> Best regards and happy easter!
> Niklas
>
> [1]: <http://purl.org/NET/atom-link-rel>
> [2]: <http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml>
> [3]: <http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/>
> [4]: <http://bitbucket.org/niklasl/tripleheap/src/tip/iana-link-relations.rdf>
>
Niklas,
Nice!
I would once again suggest adding local "owl:equivalentProperty"
assertions which enables a reasoner to treat the IANA URIs as synonyms.
This is in line with what I like to call the: owl:shameAs pattern :-)
Kingsley
>
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Michael Hausenblas
> <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote:
>
>> Nathan, Phil, All,
>>
>>
>>> and quote:
>>> "If the relation-type is a relative URI, its base URI MUST be
>>> considered to be "http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/"
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03.txt
>>>
>>> obviously all the links defined by:
>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
>>> (from the atom rfc)
>>>
>>>
>>>>> such as edit, self, related etc - with additional consideration to the
>>>>> thought that these will end up in rdf via RDFa/grddl etc v soon if not
>>>>> already.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any guidance?
>>>>>
>> Yes. Use [1] ...
>>
>> My motto is: acting rather than talking. So, I took [2] as a starting point
>> - which is already in nice XHTML format - and manually added some RDFa.
>> After an hour I ended up with [1] (though, to be fair, two Wii games with
>> the kids and consuming some Easter eggs also took place in that hour).
>>
>> So, [1] is really a sort of an interim solution (though, in the distributed
>> data world I do expect much more of such fixes) and I encourage Phil, who is
>> an editor of [2] to use the template from [1] at the 'official' location.
>>
>> Happy Easter! (and back to Wii games, for now ;)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
>>
>> [1] http://purl.org/NET/atom-link-rel
>> [2] http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Michael Hausenblas
>> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
>> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
>> Ireland, Europe
>> Tel. +353 91 495730
>> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
>> http://sw-app.org/about.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
>>> Organization: webr3
>>> Reply-To: <nathan@webr3.org>
>>> Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 00:14:16 +0100
>>> To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?
>>> Resent-From: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
>>> Resent-Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 23:14:54 +0000
>>>
>>> Danny Ayers wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3 April 2010 00:53, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Any guidance on using predicates in linked data / rdf which do not come
>>>>> from rdfs/owl. Specifically I'm considering the range of:
>>>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/*
>>>>>
>>>> Can't find a URL that resolves there
>>>>
>>> snap; but that's what rel="edit" and so forth resolves to.
>>>
>>> see example:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html#ATOMSection
>>>
>>> and quote:
>>> "If the relation-type is a relative URI, its base URI MUST be
>>> considered to be "http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/"
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03.txt
>>>
>>> obviously all the links defined by:
>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
>>> (from the atom rfc)
>>>
>>>
>>>>> such as edit, self, related etc - with additional consideration to the
>>>>> thought that these will end up in rdf via RDFa/grddl etc v soon if not
>>>>> already.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any guidance?
>>>>>
>>>> By using something as a predicate you are making statements about it. But...
>>>>
>>>> If you can find IANA terms like this, please use them - though beware
>>>> the page isn't the concept. You might have to map them over to your
>>>> own namespace, PURL URIs preferred.
>>>>
>>> Would it make sense to knock up an ontology for all the standard
>>> link-relations and sameAs them through to the iana uri's?
>>>
>>> Best, Nathan
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President & CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen